The court took the decision after no individual or representative of Useni’s estate appeared within the statutory 14-day period to show cause why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed January 26 to rule on the final forfeiture of a London property linked to the late Jeremiah Useni, a former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.
The court took the decision after no individual or representative of Useni’s estate appeared within the statutory 14-day period to show cause why the property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.
The forfeiture proceedings arose from an ex parte application filed in late 2025 by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).
The CCB sought an interim forfeiture and preservation order over the property, alleging it was acquired with proceeds of unlawful activity.
On November 28, Justice Binta Nyako granted the interim forfeiture order.
The judge directed the CCB to publish the order in a national newspaper within 14 days.
The publication was to invite any person or body with interest in the property to come forward and establish legitimate ownership.
BACKGROUND
The property is located at 79 Randall Avenue, London NW2 7SX.
Those linked to the dispute include Chief Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and the late Useni, a retired lieutenant-general.
The matter was earlier filed at the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Land Registration in the United Kingdom.
The case was registered under reference number REF/2023/0155.
One Tali Shani was listed as the applicant, while Ozekhome was named as the respondent.
The property was claimed by a “Ms Tali Shani” on one side and Ozekhome on the other.
Ozekhome said he received the property as a gift from a “Mr Tali Shani” in 2021.
Lawyers representing “Ms Tali Shani” insisted she was the rightful owner.
A witness identified as “Mr Tali Shani” testified in support of Ozekhome.
He claimed he held Powers of Attorney over the property.
He further stated that he transferred the property to Ozekhome.
Mr Tali Shani claimed ownership of the property since 1993.
He also said he later appointed Useni as his property manager.
He described Useni as an elder friend and business partner.
In contrast, witnesses for Ms Tali Shani tendered several documents to establish ownership.
The documents included an obituary announcement, National Identification Number card, ECOWAS passport and a phone number.
However, the tribunal found all the documents presented in support of Ms Tali Shani’s claim to be fake.
The tribunal consequently dismissed all the claims.
It ruled that neither “Mr” nor “Ms” Tali Shani existed.
ICPC FILES CHARGES AGAINST OZEKHOME
The Federal Government has now filed criminal charges against Ozekhome over alleged forgery and use of false documents in the United Kingdom property dispute.
The three-count charge is marked FCT/HC/CR/010/2026.
It was filed before a Federal High Court in Abuja.
The charges were brought by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
The prosecution team includes Osuobeni Akponimisingha, head of the ICPC’s high-profile prosecution department, and Ngozi Onwuka, an assistant chief legal officer.
They filed the charges on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Federation.
In count one, Ozekhome is accused of receiving the London property in August 2021.
The charge alleges that the property was purportedly given to him by one Mr Shani Tali.
The prosecution claims he knew the act constituted a felony.
The offence is said to be contrary to Section 13 and punishable under Section 24 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
Count two alleges that Ozekhome made a false Nigerian passport in the name of Mr Shani Tali.
The prosecution said the document was created to support a claim of ownership of the London property.
The alleged offence is contrary to Section 363 and punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code applicable in the Federal Capital Territory.
Count three accuses Ozekhome of dishonestly using the alleged false passport as genuine.
The charge claims he knew or had reason to believe that the document was false.
The offence is said to be contrary to Section 366 and punishable under Section 364 of the Penal Code.
Join us on our WhatsApp Platform @KOIKIMEDIA NEWS YOUR PAGE
koikimedia Bringing the World 🌎 Closer to Your